Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fred Malek, Sarah Palin and the Case for Loyalty



Fred Malek has emerged as the leading defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Photo by Nikki Kahn of the Washington Post

Fred Malek is, by his own admission, loyal to a fault.

"My strength is loyalty, my downfall is loyalty," Malek acknowledged in a recent interview with the Fix. "I'm the guy who waved goodbye to [former President Richard] Nixon from the White House lawn."

It is that sense of loyalty that has led Malek, a prominent Republican rainmaker, to emerge as the leading defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the wake of the 2008 election where she served as the party's vice presidential nominee.

Palin's surprise resignation last week has made Malek a wanted man -- one of a coveted few in Washington who have a relationship with the Alaska governor.

Malek insisted that "everybody is trying to over-analyze" Palin's resignation, attributing it either to a need to escape ethics charges or as part of a grand plan to position herself for a presidential run in 2012.

"She's not that calculating," said Malek. He added that viewing Palin's resignation through the 2012 lens is a mistake.

That Malek has come to be regarded as the authority on Palin -- or certainly one of the few -- is remarkable in its own way.

Despite being at the center of Republican politics for decades -- after spending four years as an aide to Nixon (former secretary of state Colin Powell referred to Malek as Nixon's disciplinarian) he chaired George H. W. Bush's campaign for president in 1992 -- Malek had never met Palin before she was picked by John McCain (Ariz.) as his running mate last fall.

Shortly after that selection, Palin and her husband, Todd, spent 90 minutes with Malek at his home in McLean, Va. where they chatted and the campaign filmed footage for several commercials.

Aside from seeing her occasionally at fundraising events during the fall, Malek had little contact with Palin until McCain's defeat last November. As the obituaries of the campaign began to be written -- and Palin began to be savaged by former McCain aides -- Malek found himself more and more annoyed. "It really torqued me," he explained.

Malek proceeded to take Palin under his considerable Washington wing, inviting her to attend the exclusive Alfalfa Dinner in late January as his guest and hosting a foreign policy discussion attended by the likes of former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci and former deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott.

What has led Malek to put himself so far forward for Palin even as many other longtime Washington insiders scoff at the idea that she can be a serious national figure or presidential candidate?

"You can teach people to read a [tele]prompter, you can teach people to spout policy but you can't reach people charisma and magnetism," explained Malek.

Malek is quick to note that he has absolutely no idea whether Palin will ultimately run for president and, even if she does, he isn't pledging his support for her.

But, he does have some advice for the soon-to-be former governor if she wants to continue to keep her name in the mix as a national figure and/or potential presidential nominee.

Malek believes Palin should keep her hometown of Wasilla as a home base and make two of three trips a month out of the state. Those trips should include appearances for candidates -- Malek said former Virginia state attorney general Bob McDonnell is very interested in Palin coming to the state -- fundraising for 2010 candidates, a paid speech or two and perhaps an event for a charity of her choosing.

Should Palin really want to run for president, she would need to get "more serious on substantive stuff," hire a speech writer, pen an occasional opinion piece to flesh out her world view and make a foreign trip (Palin recently traveled to Kosovo) every six months or so, according to Malek.

Regardless of what Palin does next, Malek will be watching.

"She has that Ronald Reagan quality," he said of the Alaska governor. "She has that magic."

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 8, 2009; 3:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2012 , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kirk Will Run For Illinois Senate
Next: The Most Important Number in Politics Today

Comments

I think we all know what kind of "magic" Fred thinks Palin has.
She has the ability to make dead wood come to life.
He's another Palintologist.

Posted by: seemstome | July 10, 2009 12:20 AM | Report abuse

What an idiot.
Palin is a disgrace.
Ronald Reagan had dignity.
She has none.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

-------------------------------------------
I beg to differ with you.

Reagan was the first to see how stupid the entire Bush clan was when he at first refused to nominate G.H.W. Bush to succeed him.

That's where his intelligence ended, as far as I'm concerned. He was the first candidate to run by pitting Americans against other Americans. He in fact lowered the standards to the point where a criminally stupid prick like W (starts with "duh")could serve as president, provided he could steal an election. Palin is just the frosting on the conservative cake.

When Reagan said that government wasn't the solution, it was the problem, he was speaking about Republican government, as they have created more problems than they have ever solved.

Instead of deifying that old prick, he should be dug up so that we can throw rocks at him for what he did to thhis country.

Posted by: dennissuper | July 9, 2009 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey, you numb-nuts, you may think Sarah needs some grooming, but at least she didn't say there are 57 states in the United States like a certain commander-in-chief now displaying his immense popularity overseas, where it doesn't count.

Posted by: patriciomick9999 | July 9, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

darinholmes, before you get to carried away with the Sarah praise you better wait and see why she really gave up her position. It wasn't for skiping sunday school.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | July 9, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

do i smell another stimulus package? obama doesnt have a clue whats goin on.. hes running our gov. like a dam casino. college grads are working at mcdonalds for christ sake. the last stimulus had nothig to do with creating jobs.NOTHING..(OBAMA HAS FAILED)-big time.. obama is got to be the most ignorant pres we ever HAD..AND YOU PEOPLE ATTACK SARAH? WTF. isnt she one of us--you know an (AMERICAN). theres no terrorist sh-t gion on to report.. the FACT is that sarah is a threat to both parties rep. and dems. media, because of her stands on corruption..washington dont need anyone like her exposing there kickbacks, scams, schemes,STEALING OUR MONEY ect. going on there now do we.. afterall she exposed her own party to corruption..this article is misleading her, to something shes not.. shes just an american woman with a spine,with the heart to do the right thing, thats it.. no more no less-- (quote for the day)- the dumb is always eaisly influenced by words and not FACTS-- remember this the next time you pay your taxes..we are going to need her reagan style politics, after obama bankrupts us..

Posted by: darin_holmes | July 9, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

do i smell another stimulus package? obama doesnt have a clue whats goin on.. hes running our gov. like a dam casino. college grads are working at mcdonalds for christ sake. the last stimulus had nothig to do with creating jobs.NOTHING..(OBAMA HAS FAILED)-big time.. obama is got to be the most ignorant pres we ever HAD..AND YOU PEOPLE ATTACK SARAH? WTF. isnt she one of us--you know an (AMERICAN). theres no terrorist sh-t gion on to report.. the FACT is that sarah is a threat to both parties rep. and dems. media, because of her stands on corruption..washington dont need anyone like her exposing there kickbacks, scams, schemes,STEALING OUR MONEY ect. going on there now do we.. afterall she exposed her own party to corruption..this article is misleading her, to something shes not.. shes just an american woman with a spine,with the heart to do the right thing, thats it.. no more no less-- (quote for the day)- the dumb is always eaisly influenced by words and not FACTS-- remember this the next time you pay your taxes..we are going to need her reagan style politics, after obama bankrupts us..

Posted by: darin_holmes | July 9, 2009 4:10 PM | Report abuse

do i smell another stimulus package? obama doesnt have a clue whats goin on.. hes running our gov. like a dam casino. college grads are working at mcdonalds for christ sake. the last stimulus had nothig to do with creating jobs.NOTHING..(OBAMA HAS FAILED)-big time.. obama is got to be the most ignorant pres we ever HAD..AND YOU PEOPLE ATTACK SARAH? WTF. isnt she one of us--you know an (AMERICAN). theres no terrorist sh-t gion on to report.. the FACT is that sarah is a threat to both parties rep. and dems. media, because of her stands on corruption..washington dont need anyone like her exposing there kickbacks, scams, schemes,STEALING OUR MONEY ect. going on there now do we.. afterall she exposed her own party to corruption..this article is misleading her, to something shes not.. shes just an american woman with a spine,with the heart to do the right thing, thats it.. no more no less-- (quote for the day)- the dumb is always eaisly influenced by words and not FACTS-- remember this the next time you pay your taxes..we are going to need her reagan style politics, after obama bankrupts us..

Posted by: darin_holmes | July 9, 2009 4:09 PM | Report abuse

shrink2 wrote:
"But if you think some other industrialized country built on slave labor and aboriginal genocide will elect a black man president, you are crazy. Never in Europe, never in the UK, never in Asia, never in South nor Central America."

What about South Africa???

Posted by: lionlady_pa | July 9, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Palin but do not think she is qualified to be president. Republican Party needs someone with brains like Mitt Romney but the crazed evangelicals who themselves belong to a truncated version of Christianity do not like his religion but love Palin who is unqualified. There is a reason WASP's have the lowest incomes just above Hispanics. They make terrible decisions. Romney is a billionaire. His religion did not stop him.

Posted by: mascmen7 | July 9, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

To be polite I guess we could describe her as "SCATTER BRAINED"

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | July 9, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I agree that SP's resignation is being over-analyzed. I think she just got bored with the job and didn't want to do it anymore - a very telling sign of immaturity. Alaskan pols even said she would get restless after being in a meeting for a while. God forbid she should ever become president! I think she likes the glitz but doesn't have the discipline to follow through and finish things she starts.

Posted by: lionlady_pa | July 9, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

vikkids:

What do you consider to be Gov. Palin's most blatant inconsistency?

Posted by: JakeD | July 9, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Strum, good points - that Beveridge was not a socialist is a good point [and the one I was making about the welfare state not being the same as a socialist state], the Labour Party used to be socialist but is not now, and Methodism has as much to do with the Brit welfare state as theoretical socialism.
-------------------------------------------------------
In fact, Smith and Ricardo were both trained to the ministry, and not COE as I recall. The original notion of capitalism included the ethic of "fairness" and it was assumed by Smith and Ricardo that producers and sellers had to play within rules of societal behavior.

The juxtaposition of "social justice" and economic organization - most notably from Wesleyan principles in England, cannot be ignored.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 9, 2009 11:05 AM | Report abuse

strum:

Luckily, here in America, we enjoy the separation of church and state.

Posted by: JakeD | July 9, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I myself did not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket. It has nothing to do with fearing Palin. I very much fear those that support her blindly, based on charisma, and her sexually. This means there is support of her without thinking. I like to deal with facts and researching those facts to determine the intelligence and truthfulness of a candidate. When I took Palin and McCain and researched the facts, I found too many were distorted to place them in a favorable light. Too many inconsistancies I found with both. This is the political field and the hope is always, that the less knowledgeable people will vote on the likeability or sex appeal of a person. Consider if Palin, were fairless attractive, would there be support of that person, after resigning as governor.? No, there wouldn't. So, the hope is we as a country will look at her , like the physical appearance and vote. It's insulting and I'm not apart of the herd of unthinking people.

Posted by: vikkids | July 9, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

@mark_in_austin

Must pick you up on this:-

"Let me lay out the theory of the modern British welfare state, in two sentences, from Beveridge."

Beveridge was a Liberal, not a socialist (or a Socialist), who chaired an important wartime inquiry into conditions Britons might expect after the war.

Arising from this committee were a National Health Service, free at the point of service, a national education system, free at the point of service, in addition to the more general principles you point out.

Britain is a socialist society (though not always Socialist).

Karl Marx came to Britain to study English socialism. In my view (and that of many others), he got it wrong; British socialism has much more to do with Methodism than with Marxism.

Behaving as if society matters (i.e., our neighbours) isn't communism, it's Christianity.

Posted by: strum | July 9, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

59,934,814 to be exact.

Posted by: JakeD | July 9, 2009 1:30 AM | Report abuse

tonyscc:

Over 58 million votes (which is why the libs are so scared of her).

Posted by: JakeD | July 9, 2009 12:58 AM | Report abuse

why is China doing better then us, there GDP is 8% ours is 0.05%

Posted by: tonyscc | July 9, 2009 12:34 AM | Report abuse

she still got 48 million votes

Posted by: tonyscc | July 9, 2009 12:31 AM | Report abuse

While watching Colbert I have assembled a list of services.

In your welfare state, which are public, which are federal, which are local, and which remain in private hands?

streets and roads
public elementary and secondary schools
public libraries
utilities
sewage and sanitation
public health
health insurance
maintenance of inland waterways
railroads
head start
universities
air traffic control
dissemination of crop and weather information
border control
land, air, and naval forces
anti-pollution
traffic control
police and fire protection
anti-terrorism
foster homes
planned parenthood
nursing homes
bankruptcy and debt relief
mortgage interest deduction
food stamps
food subsidies
pensions

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 11:47 PM | Report abuse

The fundamental problem with laissez-faire capitalism and with Marxism is that both are theories of economic determinism. In fact, history is much more than a "class struggle". It is also the history of science and technological advance [e.g.; "Guns, Germs, and Steel"]. It is the history of religious strife. It is the history of ideas themselves.

When Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations" Europe was organized in a feudal system locally and a mercantilist system internationally. Capitalism was a radical reformist idea. The idea is only as old as America itself!

Smith explained that one role of government should be to assure competition continues - that monopolies and oligopolies were inefficient. The laissez-faire capitalists of the twentieth century scoffed at the maintenance of competition and thought that trusts were a natural result of the strongest winning - this to me is a perversion of capitalism based on economic determinism - big guy wins and takes the natural resources and wastes them. Labor to be exploited, etc.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

I had forgotten about the Fabians. My look at Socialism was the continental model which left heavy industry alone, (like Krupp, I. G. Farben, Siemens, and the like, but insisted on the Socialist State results, short work weeks, long vacations, national health care. I got my definition of Leninism and Socialism from a long, heavily annotated life of Lenin.

Thanks for the reminder.

(OK, and why does John LennOn's "Imagine" always strike me as some Fabian dittie written by some friend of Shaw?)

Posted by: ceflynline | July 8, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

The socialism of Debs and Thomas - American socialism - took for granted that small businesses and private ownership of property would remain the norm, but wanted to place major industries into the hands of the government.
----------------------------------------------------
Let me lay out the theory of the modern British welfare state, in two sentences, from Beveridge.

"It should support living standards and reduce inequality, and in so doing it should avoid costs explosion and deter behaviour conducive to moral hazard and adverse selection. All these objectives
should be achieved minimizing administrative costs and the abuse of power by those in charge of running it."

All western countries now subscribe to these words more or less. Piecemeal, every industrial nation since Bismarck has supported this notion without it having been stated until Beveridge, I think in 1946. The argument in America is one of degree, not of kind, unless you give credence to either the laissez faire school of Hayek and Mises, or to neo-Marxism. Labour in the UK and the other Socialist Parties in Europe are no longer socialist and the mainstream conservatives
are no longer opposed to the welfare state. There are clearly American Rs who are opposed to it and equate it with socialism, but it is not socialism, they are wrong, and socialism is dead. But the welfare state lives.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

Also, the 91% rate "went away" under JFK. He was the tax cutter who all tax cutters pointed to thereafter, including Reagan. JFK's tax cuts did stimulate aggregate wealth and total tax revenues, but that magic could not be extended by repetition again and again, and the returns diminished for W., predictably.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 10:49 PM | Report abuse

ceflyline, wiki has a short article on the history of "socialism" at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

When I studied economics as an undergraduate, socialist theory was segregated from Marxism and was also segregated from the "welfare state" although all had an intertwined history.

As simply as I can say it, Marxism was a total political theory based on economic determinism ["all history is the history of the class struggle"]. It was fatally flawed in its economic theorizing in that it relied on the "labor theory of value" and accorded no value to capital, or to research and development, or to hard assets. As a political theory it relied on a notion of a benign dictatorship of the working class.

Fabian socialism was the theory that the major means of production and allocation would be owned by the state which would be democratically elected and representative, and answerable at the polls. The British Labour Party aspired to this after WW2 and for some two decades when Labour was elected the coal mines and steel mills would be nationalized and then denationalized when the Conservatives were elected.
Pretty wrenching, actually.

The welfare state was first proposed by Myrdahl in the 20s in Sweden. Myrdahl was very aware of TR. TR believed that monopolies should be broken, but that natural monopolies should be regulated by the state rather than nationalized. Myrdahl though natural monopolies should be nationalized - thus Swedish RRs were nationalized but the auto industry was not, because the father of the welfare state believed that wherever competition could thrive, it should.

I do not think the WaPo will let me go on at length.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 10:41 PM | Report abuse

"That is my take. I do believe we must raise taxes and not on the people who do not have the income to amount to spit in a bucket. But 1950s taxation would be a disaster, IMHO.
Posted by: mark_in_austin"

That 91% top rate went away under Nixon, on the theory that no-one paid it any way, so why have it? THEN, with top rates pulled down to 50% and getting lower, we got Ivan Boesky, and Michael Milken, and the rest of the incredible $100 million a year types. Had they expected to give back 90% of what they were stealing they might not have been so industrious. In there some where the Ed Coles and Lee Iococcas gave way to the kind of CEO who runs his company on a quarter to quarter basis to keep his stock options hyped. Now the less than 50% top rates left lots of money after converting the fraudulent stock deals into real cash. Again, if those thieves had expected to give 90% of their swag to the Feds, would they have tried? Putting very high tax rates on excessive incomes, say more than a thousand times the full time minimum wage may not bring in much real income, but it sure takes the joy out of the Ken Lay's and Joe Skilling's and Bernie Madhoff's frauds.

And for every hot shot CEO who quits because he feels under appreciated, there are dozens of far more talented people out there who will actually run a company for much more reasonable salaries. The Charles Ketterings and Edward Deeds of this world got rich on their stocks in their companies, (not through options but through building the companies from scratch) but didn't demand near the salaries that their far less talented successors expect as a matter of natural right.

So MAYBE going back to those old super high tax categories isn't all that bad an idea.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 8, 2009 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin killed Micheal Jackson.

Posted by: JakeD | July 8, 2009 10:10 PM | Report abuse

"socialism = state ownership of the means of production and distribution of scarce resources."

mark in austin: Where did you get that definition of SOCIALISM? That, in one form or another is Marxism, Leninism, or Maoism. It is sort of Leninist Communism.

But Socialism, as practiced every where in Europe including Tsarist Russia is the belief that the Government was the provider of first resort of those universal rights like health care, education, old age support, control of private industry for social good.

Lenin decided to appropriate the term for his co-conspirators, but throughout his writings he has nothing good to say about actual socialists.

Good Republicans in the fifties wanted to conflate socialism and communism, to keep the McCarthyite wing happy with randomly declaring various Democrats "Fellow Travelers", pinkos, etc.

You usually don't make those mistakes.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 8, 2009 10:01 PM | Report abuse

The HuffPo comments on Brian Kilmeade's call for racial and ethnic purity just topped 1134! That's Palin territory.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Nonsense.

If one small elite committee rule equals communism then Mexico was communist for decades under the PRI, Iran is Communist and so on.

Communism exists in North Korea and nowhere else. Vietnam like China, is a liberal, but corrupt crony socialist state, a lot, but not just like Russia.

Corrupt, liberal versus conservative but always crony capitalist states like America, versus corrupt, always conservative socialist states are what is happening.

Not corrupt, libertarian, socialism is possible. I am somewhat sure.


Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Viet Nam is not a communist country.

==

I leave that to the hair-splitters but the hammer-and-sickle flag flies everywhere, and I imagine that most of our GOP trolls here would hemmorhage and die if they went there.

It's not Kampuchea under Pol Pot but it's not Pinochet's Chile either.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

BWJ has posted the most disturbing material. Who is "Brown Haired Guy"?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 8:01 PM
______
Sorry to go off-topic on this. He's Brian Kilmeade, one of the three "Fox and Friends" cohosts. I was hoping Olbermann would "Special Comment" him or something but KO is off tonight.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Chris and I would probably agree on necessary regulation of capitalism. When I was in law school, anti-trust law and securities regulation were taken seriously. In the mid 70s, it became popular to teach that our anti-trust laws were passe. Many current federal judges are skeptical of the entire statutory framework of the Clayton, Sherman, and Robinson-Patman Acts.

Shrink and I will have to agree to disagree about the nature of capitalism.

BWJ has posted the most disturbing material. Who is "Brown Haired Guy"?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Viet Nam is not a communist country.

Sure, they have one political party and we have two that are almost indistinguishable, except as regards civil rights (one loves guns and openly hates people unlike themselves, the other talks about trying not to).

This is what was talking about. Old categories fall apart.

Look at the economy of the internet. It is libertarian and it is socialist. It is controlled by everyone, no one and at base, people no one elected. It is not a democratic institution. It is humiliating democracies, theocracies and dictatorships faster than bombs.

In the past, people like Noam Chomsky liked Pol Pot, people were easily confused. Nowadays, no one is confused unless they like it that way. I think that makes Capitalism as impossible as Communism or Catholicism.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Honestly I don't think you need look much further, it's all but certain that they're referring to blacks and Latinos as other species. Inferior ones, to be sure.

The FCC should pull their license.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Wow so FOX has made another calculation and decided to appeal to the Raßenwißenschaftern out there.

o/~ proud to be mogrelized o/~

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 7:44 PM
_________
CF8, I'm still reading some of the hundreds of comments on Kilmeade racial purity rant (it was just posted a couple of hours ago on HuffPo).
Some comments are angry but others are hilarious--a few key on his cross-"species" remark. Are there any human-horse hookups? Human-vegetable? Unreal.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Communism, wherein all is subject to the wish of The Party, is a death machine, we all agree.

==

"Not I," said the Little Red Hen.

I go to Viet Nam every year, haltingly speak the language, my partner is over there right now. VN is a Communist country and its past includes some of the most extreme agrarian Communism the world has seen. That didn't work very well.

But Vietnamese Communism is tempered with capitalist incentives, and this system is working quite well. Literacy is extremely high, the government builds schools and hospitals and roads, and for such a starkly poor country, life is pretty good.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow so FOX has made another calculation and decided to appeal to the Raßenwißenschaftern out there.

o/~ proud to be mogrelized o/~

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Mark,

If you believe in Capitalism, all of everything is subject to the wish of Capital, regulating on the margins is well,
a fools errand.

That is called crony capitalism and that is America. There are not now, nor have there ever been free markets. All markets are set up by people in power, the people who decide what "free" means.

But the way things are made and consumed does not need to have anything to do with government's take on religion, sex, art and so on.

Libertarian socialism seems possible to me.

Communism, wherein all is subject to the wish of The Party, is a death machine, we all agree.

No one corners the markets for long, though many have tried.

The problem with trying to grow a better life in a world so over-populated that everyone getting rich (like us) can never happen, that is what I was talking about this morning.

If you don't start with that as a premise for our global economic crisis, then sure, everyone should just be like us and their kids will have a better life.


Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Show Sarah and Fred the money!!!!

Posted by: dickhealy | July 8, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

HuffPo just posted a story (link below)about how one of the Fox morning hosts finally dropped all pretense and launched a full throated white supremacist rant worthy of Auschwitz. He bemoans the lack of racial purity in America. Unbelievable.

"BROWN HAIRED GUY [Brian Kilmeade]: We keep marrying other species and other ethnics--

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Are you sure they are not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: The problem is the Swedes have pure genes. They marry other Swedes, that's the rule. Finns marry other Finns; they have a pure society. In America we marry everybody. We will marry Italians and Irish.

DAVE BRIGGS: This study does not apply?

BROWN HAIRED GUY: Does not apply to us.

[pause]

DAVE BRIGGS: Huh."
______

"The problem is the Swedes have pure genes" What "problem" is he talking about? And "pure genes"??? The Finns have a "pure" society? Does that rcial purity junk have any meaning outside of the VoNBrunn/Neo-Nazi world?

We marry other "species"? Are people marrying dogs or fish or dolphins? What does he have in mind?

Guess Fox decided to dispense with the "dogwhistles" and codewords and just go for it Palin style. You betcha.

Full article in HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/08/fox-news-host-americans-k_n_228209.html

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm not advocating a return to 91% taxation but I do think that the highest income brackets should pay in excess of 50%; moreover, I think our tax could should make the attainment of billionaire status all but impossible. People with such vast amounts of money can influence government more than people who were elected.

I get your point about the post WWII era, and my point is that there really isn't a lot of data to support the belief that "everyone knows," that taxation is a drain on the economy and an impediment to prosperity. It isn't.

Second, in the absence of regulation, business will misbehave. Self-correcting markets make as much sense as self-regulating drug gangs.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, I can defend regulated capitalism and do not think it to be an oxymoron at all [I am with TR on this]. But I read you to have in mind something other than what I described as either "socialism" or "the welfare state". Explain further, please!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I understand your rejection of the "nanny" shorthand and I should not have used it. It is not descriptive of anything and always a pejorative. You were right to call me on it.

As to your repeated contention that the 91% top bracket of WW2 and the Cold War was good for prosperity, I believe that you are incorrectly assigning cause and effect. The post war period was one in which American industry was strong while European and Japanese industry was in tatters. In 1954, Germany was producing Benzes and VWs indistinguishable from 1939 models - same for Citroen and Renault in France, MG in the UK. Detroit cars and PA steel and TX oil were world dominant. It was so different from today as to be another world. We were NOT in a competitive mkt with the rest of the world and we had huge trade surpluses. We could afford the drag of a 91% top bracket as well as the UAW contract of 1955 by an accident of history - we had won WW2 and laid waste to the rest of the industrialized world.

Our Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and by the mid 60s, we were losing that "unfair" advantage. JFK was right to lower top tax rates in the increasingly competitive environment.

That is my take. I do believe we must raise taxes and not on the people who do not have the income to amount to spit in a bucket. But 1950s taxation would be a disaster, IMHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Anyone care to answer why Palin is qualified for the Presidency?

What is it that you see in her?

Posted by: JRM2 | July 8, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

No mark, I think your definition of socialism is more applicable to communism.

Welfare states do not work.

Your "regulated capitalism" meme is, in my opinion, more conflicted in its semiotic position than "libertarian socialism".

And hey, gaspar, I'll bet we racism haters are a lot more cheerful than you. What, do you think laughing at the victims of bigots makes you live longer?


Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I go golfing one day and someone tries to take over?

==

golfing --> a session with your SSI caseworker

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

I would take the position that regulated capitalism [and here I mean regulated to foster competition and to prohibit consumer deception] is more consonant with liberty than is a nanny style welfare state. But that would, again, be a subject for much serious debate.

==

I'm shocked to read someone as sober as you usually are using that abhorrent marker term "nanny state." For most of my life that usage instantly identifies someone whose politics are beneath notice, second only to using the phrase "my money" in a public policy discussion. I hope you're making a joke here.

Anyway, however inconsonant regulation may be with the American conceit around freedom, the fact is that unregulated capitalism doesn't work. And I'm not talking about just the most recent case.

In periods of steeply progressive income taxation, high corporate taxes, and strong regulation of business, the nation is at its most prosperous. Under Eisenhower, with high corporate taxes, lotsa regulation, and income tax rates topping at 91%(!), we were a prosperous nation. Under Reagan we introduced "downsizing" to the lexicon.

As for libertarianism, you surprise me. A libertarianism of the left would favor protecting the innocent from the force and fraud of big business, there is no contradiction. And until a few decades ago there actually were libertarians who would use the word "freedom" without "economic" in front of it. They contributed to our politics. For the LP we have now, I wouldn't give a bucket of spit.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Wait just a minute! I thought that I was Palin's biggest supporter. I go golfing one day and someone tries to take over?

Posted by: JakeD | July 8, 2009 6:52 PM | Report abuse

EvenaDog, Malek was the guy who "purged" the BLS of Jews for Nixon - you were correct.

What often does not get reported is that George Shultz, then SecLabor, whisked "the Jews" out of BLS into better or equal jobs elsewhere in DOL b/c he did not want to lose his best statisticians. Malek and Nixon never knew.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

shrink2, while you are in July 4 mode, I want to offer a view on why "libertarian socialism" is unlikely. First, I will define terms, however.

socialism = state ownership of the means of production and distribution of scarce resources.

libertarian = the least state intrusion with individual conduct consistent with public health and safety.

Defining terms does clarify, in this respect, doesn't it?

But I suspect from your other posts that what you desire is a welfare state with protections of the rights enumerated in our B.O.R. That requires a more nuanced conversation than a blog affords.

I would take the position that regulated capitalism [and here I mean regulated to foster competition and to prohibit consumer deception] is more consonant with liberty than is a nanny style welfare state. But that would, again, be a subject for much serious debate.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 8, 2009 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Thanks drindl for the "dog whistle" analogy. My god that's perfect.

"Porous borders."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox: the wingnuts never have an answer when i mention that the biggest abortionist of all time is God.

==

70% of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the endometrium wall and are menstruated away.

I've demanded from them what their reaction would be were it determined that the mother's activity was a factor here (it's probably developmental defects that cause the rejection); would they demand that women be immobilized for two weeks after sex?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Man, I just love the WaPo! The articles are sometimes interesting, but the comments from the peanut gallery are always, absolutely priceless. They seem to run the gamut from conspiracy theorists to the obligatory racial-political fanatics. Just as a general note, you guys know you aren’t obligated to hate someone to your very core just to disagree, don’t you? A lifetime of hatred and vitriol can’t possibly be good for your longevity. Cheer up, for heaven’s sake!

Posted by: gaspar | July 8, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

chrisfox: the wingnuts never have an answer when i mention that the biggest abortionist of all time is God.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 8, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

More bad news for wingnuts. Someday you'll have no abortion clinics to abuse women, I mean protest, in front of.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_he_me/abortion_pill

Posted by: koolkat_1960

==

The rhetorical beauty here is that a woman can take the pill after sex and never know if she had been briefly pregnant. So much of the justification for the antiabortion crowd has been the elective decision to terminate a pregnancy; in the absence of certain knowledge that one is pregnant, it's pretty hard to call it "murder" and then go on with some scolding about "inconvenience."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"governor of a state whose population is less than that of the Baltimore/Washington corridor."

Alaska has fewer people than Montgomery, PG, or Fairfax Counties.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 8, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

I think Fred Malek is as delusional as anyone else who takes ex-Gov. Palin seriously. She is simply Richard Nixon without the smarts. Anything that goes wrong for her is someone else's fault. Journalists who insist on asking her questions that she can't answer obviously have it in for her. If things don't go her way, there must be a huge conspiracy against her. This kind of self-obsession and associated paranoia is certainly not what America needs. She should go get a job on talk radio and hang out with Coulter and Limbaugh and Hannity and the other windbags.

Posted by: topperale | July 8, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

More bad news for wingnuts. Someday you'll have no abortion clinics to abuse women, I mean protest, in front of.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_he_me/abortion_pill

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 8, 2009 5:30 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I completely agree with your post about the Republican party being a safe house for American bigots. But if you think some other industrialized country built on slave labor and aboriginal genocide will elect a black man president, you are crazy. Never in Europe, never in the UK, never in Asia, never in South nor Central America.

Racism is vile, but it needs its Sarah Palin's to organize around. The beauty of our system is manifest. Germany makes hate speech illegal, but when my wife (who is half Kalimantan Dyak (aboriginal) jumped in the pool, the Weiber all got their kids out, und zwar schnell.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 5:26 PM | Report abuse

broadway joe -- she's been quoting Pegler for some time now. It's the same 'dog whistle' politics the GOP has used for years. The R base knows the language and recognized it for what it is -- raw racism, and they eat it up. It's the same strategy that Reagan used when he chose to make a racist speech near where several black people were murdered during the civil rights era, and why he specifically chose to speak at colleges where interraccial dating for prohibited.

Posted by: drindl | July 8, 2009 5:10 PM
_________
Agreed, d.

Just frustrating that the MSM including the Post, which publishes Fix, will not print the facts but insist on falling back on their idiotic false narrative of Phalin as a "Caribou Barbie" and the rest of that nonsense. I'm not the only one: Gene Robinson and Richard Cohen when ballistic on Phalin yesterday on the Post oped page. We're fed up. She is already an important symbol in the hate community and her dogwhistles to them are dangerous. Oh well. Look on the brighter side: the Dodgers are on ESPN tonight. Go Man-Ram.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The problem with Palin is that after thousands of self scribed words and an interview with ABC - NO ONE knows why she resigned. That about sums it all up. So if you apply Occam's Razor then the simplest answer is probably the correct one. She quit while the getting was good and damn everyone in Alaska but herself. It's the only purely clear explanation, so stop thinking too deep.

If you can accept that as responsible then so be it. I see it as opportunistic and narcissistic.

Posted by: sjmuffler | July 8, 2009 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Palin will make the perfect hand puppet for them, just as Dubya did -- the perfect fool and figurehead.

Posted by: drindl

==

And as with Bush, anyone who wants to manipulate her to his bidding need only quote a bible verse (Rumsfeld) or wear a crucifix (Putin). She'll eat it right up.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone really surprised that power-brokers (like Malek) would jump at the chance to pull a puppet string?

Posted by: molsonmich | July 8, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

broadway joe -- she's been quoting Pegler for some time now. It's the same 'dog whistle' politics the GOP has used for years. The R base knows the language and recognized it for what it is -- raw racism, and they eat it up. It's the same strategy that Reagan used when he chose to make a racist speech near where several black people were murdered during the civil rights era, and why he specifically chose to speak at colleges where interraccial dating for prohibited.

Posted by: drindl | July 8, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

shrink, we no longer lead the world.

sorry to let you down, but we have squandered too much of our moral standing to say that anymore. and don't beleive other countries will not elect black men and women. times change, thank god.

Posted by: drindl | July 8, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I read about Malek on wikipedia.com.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Malek

What the wiki write-up says about Malek's Nixon days under the heading "BLS controversy" is deeply disturbing. Mrs. Palin chose to quote the late antisemite Westbrook Pegler, an icon in the world of organized hate, in her acceptance speech at the GOP convention. Perhaps he and Palin are birds of a feather on "certain issues." Who knows.

In any event, troubling facts...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

How about a little background on Palin's new tutors, eh CC?

"Carlucci served as chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1992-2003, and chairman emeritus until 2005. He also has business interests in the following companies: General Dynamics, Westinghouse, Ashland Oil, Neurogen, CB Commercial Real Estate, Nortel, BDM International, Quaker Oats, and Kaman. Carlucci is Chairman of Envion USA, and former director of Wackenhut. He is a senior member of the Frontier Group, a private equity investment firm founded by Sanford McDonnell and David Robb. Carlucci is an Advisory board member of G2 Satellite Solutions and the Chairman Emeritus of Nortel Networks


He is affiliated with the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, a neo-conservative thinktank.[citation needed]He formerly sat on the Board of Directors of the Middle East Policy Council.[citation needed] He is Chairman Emeritus of the US-Taiwan Business Council.[citation needed]Carlucci is a member of the Board of Trustees of the RAND Corporation and founding co-chair of the Advisory Board for RAND's Center for Middle East Public Policy."

Carlucci is in with the in crowd -- connected to virtually every neocon and extreme rightwing corporate structure like Wackenhut [one of the largest federal private contractors, milking US raxpayers for billions] plus the Carlysle Corporaton [partners with GW Bush and the Bin Ladin family]. And every Middle Eastern 'think tank' whose motto is Bomb Iran and We'll Steal the Oil.

Yes, Palin will make the perfect hand puppet for them, just as Dubya did -- the perfect fool and figurehead.

Posted by: drindl | July 8, 2009 4:57 PM | Report abuse

DrainYou wrote, "Palin is on 14:59 of her 15 minutes."

Given the relatively slow pace of comments on this Fix post, she's losing her reliability as a generator of page hits...perhaps some sort of Palin fatigue is kicking in. I would count that as evidence that God is merciful.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | July 8, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

113th pro-Palin Fix post. The record continues...
_____

Pultizer Prize winner Eugene Robinson has a much different (and much more reality-based) take:

"The reasons she gave for stepping down are not just contrived or implausible but literally nonsensical. She can most effectively serve the people of Alaska by ceasing to exercise the powers of chief executive? She worries that as a lame duck she would somehow be compelled to waste taxpayer money on useless junkets? In her "Don't Cry For Me, Alaska" news conference announcing her departure, the folksy non sequiturs -- "Only dead fish go with the flow" -- were like nuggets of Cartesian logic amid a tub of mush.

But I'm stating the obvious. The thing is, Palin's unsuitability for high public office has been obvious all along. Tina Fey got it right; the rest of us were far too reluctant to state plainly that the emperor, or empress, has no clothes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/06/AR2009070603141.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

The empress has no clothes.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | July 8, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

It's really kind of comical to read the gyrations from Palin supporters trying to claim she's presidential material. JakeD funniest of all, pointing out that 3.5 years before the next election, there are people who recognize Palin's name. Wow.

Running this ignorant nasty woman for the nation's top office wouldn't just be politically suicidal, it would be wantonly irresponsible.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Palin is on 14:59 of her 15 minutes.

Posted by: DrainYou | July 8, 2009 4:26 PM | Report abuse

If Republicans see Reagan in Palin, it is proof that they have political macular degeneration. Palin was a small town mayor who quit halfway through her first term as governor of a state whose population is less than that of the Baltimore/Washington corridor. Reagan served two terms as governor of California when that state was the economic engine of the nation. Before that--and it's a fact few people recall--he was President of the Screen Actors Guild, an incredibly contentious job, especially for a guy who had moved from Roosevelt-style liberal to Goldwater-style conservative. And, oh yeah, before that he was a movie star.

I was not a fan of Reagan's politics or his presidency, but the idea that Palin could or she be compared to him is hilarious. Warren G. Harding, maybe.

Posted by: jhpurdy | July 8, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

>>"She's not that calculating," said Malek

First response is not a big shock.

And really, I don't hate Reagan but I don't put her in the same legal as any president we've had in the past. I don't find any magic in her. I find someone that frankly I don't really like in the least as a person or a politician.

I guess it's because I don't feel sorry for her. I have enough problems with my own family and our financial hardships to have much sympathy for someone to quit a job they don't like just because they seem to have forgotten how to be a stronger person. She gets no sympathy from me if she can't go through with a year of work until re-election time.

Posted by: mtcooley | July 8, 2009 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Well, she really has that Reagan character, the one that was totally oblivious to what was really going on, especially in the last year or so when his Alzheimer's was beginning to be obvious.

Expecting a forty something who never before cared enough to know little things like the names of the continents to no become a student of everything she ignored before fails on two levels, first because she would need motivation she never could muster, but more to the point, should she actually become ANY kind of an expert she wouldn't be the air head the far right came to love so well.

A Sarah Palin who could speak, read, and right at somewhere above the seventh grade level wouldn't fit the 'gal you most might like to have a beer in a bar with' persona she used to such dramatic success running with John McCain, and Sarah as a wonk(ette) would alienate her bush pilot Walter Mittys, even if learning about the real world didn't change her beliefs about the age of the earth, or the efficacy of abstinence only education.

Still, there is every reason to believe Sarah will always be Sarah. Should she stick around to be a figure in the 2012 presidential campaign, let's see if this irrational loyalty will cause the twenty percenters to take over the Republican Party for her, and thereby cause it to machinegun itself, feet, legs, hands, arms and head.

Could happen, you betcha.

Posted by: ceflynline | July 8, 2009 4:06 PM | Report abuse

spin it like a record...

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 8, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

evenadog,

If you think kooks like these two are unique to this country, you have to remember one thing, our newly minted 1/2 African President.

We have lots of political kooks, but only America could have elected BHObama after it elected GWBush.

No "liberal" "socialist" country, from Denmark to New Zealand ever will. Not Canada, not Mexico. This country is amazing and it has a lot fewer political clowns and pretenders than the rest. Silvio B in Italy is exhibit A. Then there are is Libya, Russia, Indonesia (where I met my wife) and on and on.

I love this country and because of its wide open politics, we will to continue to lead the world.

Not trying to be mean to the others, just sayin', no one can match our founding fathers' system of government. Guess I am still stuck in July 4th mode.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"viewing Palin's resignation through the 2012 lens is a mistake"

Attempting to parse Palin's acts and utterances using reason is a mistake. She's a textbook case of a person who seems to speak a "private language" - and of course, a "private language" isn't a language at all, but something more akin to a series of expressive grunts, perhaps accompanied by excited pointing gestures.

Froomkin's going to Huffpo.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | July 8, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Fred Malek?

You mean the guy who tried to purge the federal government of Jews at Nixon's behest?

Malek and Palin--only in America.

Posted by: evenadog | July 8, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"more serious on substantive stuff"

I can not stop laughing at this line.

My lunch is going to end up spattered on my keyboard unless I switch to news from Urumchi or something.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Good dog, loyal to a lousy master.

Loyal though thick and thin.

Woof!

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 8, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Can you teach people that politics is a contact sport that cuts both ways?

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Four years working for Nixon would make anyone delusional.

Posted by: Bondosan | July 8, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

What an idiot.
Palin is a disgrace.
Ronald Reagan had dignity.
She has none.

Posted by: shrink2 | July 8, 2009 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company